If the Ukrainians aren't showing any motivation to either join NATO or shoot Russians (or both) there's no reason for the West to expend treasure or the lives of its military members in the defense of the nation. There has to be an intrinsic desire for a free Ukrainian state before there can be much of an extrinsic desire for one.

Call me when the Ukrainians tell the Russian government that they are going to send home some dead Russian soldiers. Until then….

If the Ukrainians aren't showing any motivation to either join NATO or shoot Russians (or both) there's no reason for the West to expend treasure or the lives of its military members in the defense of the nation. There has to be an intrinsic desire for a free Ukrainian state before there can be much of an extrinsic desire for one.

Call me when the Ukrainians tell the Russian government that they are going to send home some dead Russian soldiers. Until then….

I find it depressing that you think not killing people is so intrinsically bad that everyone else should ignore said non-killers until they damn well kill someone. Thankfully there are enough people who think not killing people is actually quite a good thing and will assist non-killers diplomatically in order to help them solve their problems.

I find it depressing that you think not killing people is so intrinsically bad that everyone else should ignore said non-killers until they damn well kill someone. Thankfully there are enough people who think not killing people is actually quite a good thing and will assist non-killers diplomatically in order to help them solve their problems.

I find it depressing that the Ukrainian people won't defend their homeland with their lives as well as with their words. Since armed service members from my country may be asked to place their lives on the line to defend this nation, if they aren't showing a willingness to do this themselves, then I don't think that my country's involvement in this matter should extend beyond peripherally supporting it and the democratic process.

Perhaps you can see a scenario where the Russian nation will respect Ukrainian sovereignty without resorting to open warfare. If so, I would advise you to forward that idea or plan to the appropriate agencies as they seem to have run out of ideas and plans themselves. At this juncture, the use of military force seems to be the only option left to prevent Ukraine or sizable portions of it from being reabsorbed into Russia proper.

I find it depressing that the Ukrainian people won't defend their homeland with their lives as well as with their words. Since armed service members from my country may be asked to place their lives on the line to defend this nation, if they aren't showing a willingness to do this themselves, then I don't think that my country's involvement in this matter should extend beyond peripherally supporting it and the democratic process.

Perhaps you can see a scenario where the Russian nation will respect Ukrainian sovereignty without resorting to open warfare. If so, I would advise you to forward that idea or plan to the appropriate agencies as they seem to have run out of ideas and plans themselves. At this juncture, the use of military force seems to be the only option left to prevent Ukraine or sizable portions of it from being reabsorbed into Russia proper.

It has been made quite plain that we are not going to be going to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. If you have information pointing to the fact that NATO, or whoever else, will be sending troops into a shooting war then please link it.

With regards to solving problems without the use of force, it can be done. There are plenty of levers that can be used against Russia, the fact that its economy is in such a state only adds to that. You should also check up on historical acts of not killing people to see that they can bring about quite substantial victories. Researching Ghandi, who probably quite liked India even though he didn't kill people, might be a good start.

He's driving Eastern Europeans, including Ukrainians, closer to The West, not pulling them closer to him.

It didnt matter what Putin did or does now to attract or endear Ukraine to him. Ukraine's current government and President came to power via anti-Russian mob rule. And that occurred before the Crimeans made their move to separate. Putin has thus far reacted to the violent mob that overthrew the head of state. He does not see a legitimately elected government where eastern Ukraine and Crimean formerly had a voice.

Now you claim that Putin is driving Eastern Ukrainians away too. But they had no say in what went down in Kiev. And had Putin reacted by doing nothing at all it is doubtful that the mob would change its mind about Putin and getting close to him or his Russia.

It has been made quite plain that we are not going to be going to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. If you have information pointing to the fact that NATO, or whoever else, will be sending troops into a shooting war then please link it.

With regards to solving problems without the use of force, it can be done. There are plenty of levers that can be used against Russia, the fact that its economy is in such a state only adds to that. You should also check up on historical acts of not killing people to see that they can bring about quite substantial victories. Researching Ghandi, who probably quite liked India even though he didn't kill people, might be a good start.

Several things:

Wouldn't that be "Gandhi?" - Pretty sure that the "H" was further along in his name.Also, you should probably read a history book or two as India's independence came because the UK was unable to afford its empire, not due to any non-violent protesting. The British could have locked up Gandhi and kept on going into the 50's or 60's if they could have afforded to do so.

I have no clue that there won't be a shooting war in the Ukraine - I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you. If you do, then you should have probably spotted the Russian invasion of Crimea and called a few weeks sooner.

Please feel free to demonstrate a major international issue that has been resolved peacefully in the last 150 years on the scale of the current imbroglio between Russia and Ukraine. Please also demonstrate a military invasion which has be peacefully turned back during that same time period.

Anyway, you gave your opinion of the situation and I don't see any merit in it. Again, if Ukraine wants Western assistance then they should demonstrate why that assistance won't simply be flushed down the drain. If not, then I wish them good luck in rejoining the failing Russian empire.

On 03-03-2014 at 04:23 PM RickJay? Oh, so allegedly there might be a referendum on independence. But as of today, Crimea is still part of Ukraine; so why are there Russian soldiers there, and would Ukraine not be justified in using force to make them leave?

Ukraine would have been justified in using force if it had a legitimate central government to command the Ukrainian military on what to do. Violent thugs overthrew the government in Kiev so the command and control was lost.

The facts are that the Ukraine military did not use force to make the Pro-Russia self-defense forces and Russian forces leave. So the Pro-Russia military won what could have been a war but wasn't. It appears Ukraine surrendered Crimea without a fight.

Its their problem they lost it. Remember they were celebrating the demise of Putin and the pro-Russian people living in Eastern Kiev and Crimea. They didn't laugh long in Ukraine.

He's driving Eastern Europeans, including Ukrainians, closer to The West, not pulling them closer to him. This will prove to have been a mistake for him.

John Mace would have to be correct in his first statement in order to be correct about the second. Instead he is wrong on both counts.

Quote:

Protestors supporting Russia's intervention in Crimea have clashed with police at rallies across the Ukraine, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Paris in another bid to calm tensions.

In Donetsk, pro-Moscow protesters stormed the railway station and were blocking trains to Kiev and Lviv.

At a demonstration in Kharkiv today there were banners urging 'Russia -Save us', and pleading for a referendum on joining Moscow.

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17159556) Just wondering. If a Russian military officer or serviceman leaves Moscow on a plane as a Russian citizen then arrives in Crimea at an airport run by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea...

On 03-03-2014 at 05:09 PM RickJay replied:

Quote:

I've never heard of such a country. My country recognizes no such place. Do they have an embassy here?

A second aspect regarding Putin's motives would be that the agricultural map of Ukraine closely approximates the ethnic map, and Russia could seriously benefit from "owning" the Ukrainian bread basket, (that some agricultural experts rate as better than the U.S. bread basket, having deeper and richer topsoil).

A decisive vote against NATO - On February 14 Ukraine's Election Commission declared Viktor Yanukovych the winner in that embattled country's Presidential runoff vote, defeating former Prime Minister and Orange Revolution instigator Yulia Tymoshenko. Contrary to the positive spin Washington is trying to put on the events, they mark the definitive death of Ukraine's much-touted “Orange Revolution.“

An excerpt from the above Mar 22, 2010 - 06:09 AM GMT report:

Quote:

The eastern part of Ukraine bordering Russia is home to more than 15 million ethnic Russians and remains literally the bread basket of eastern Europe, with some of the richest soil on earth. In 2009 Ukraine was the world's third largest grain exporter after the USA and EU, and ahead of Russia and Canada.[1] Ukraine's famous black soil, chornozem, is considered the most fertile in the world, and covers two-thirds of Ukraine.[2] The area around the rivers Dnieper and Dniester is the only place in the world where the width of the so-called ‘sweet’ black soil reaches 500 km. This soil is exceptional in providing very high quality harvests and belongs to the national wealth. Western agribusiness companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and Kraft Foods are reportedly salivating over the prospect of an end to the internal Ukrainian political stalemate in hopes of exploiting these resources. [3]

The Ukrainian Donetsk region in the eastern Donets Basin or Donbas is the political base of newly elected President Yanukovych. It is the most populous region of Ukraine and the center of its coal, steel and metallurgy industries, science centers and universities. Ukraine's Donbas contains an estimated 109 billion tons of coal as well as oil and gas.

Overall, Ukraine is one of the richest regions in all Europe for natural resources including granite, graphite, and salts. It provides a rich source for metallurgical, porcelain, chemical industries, for production of ceramics and building materials. [4]

In short, capture of the Ukraine in 2004 was a prize of strategic geopolitical importance for Washington in its bid for what the Pentagon terms ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’—control of the entire planet: land, air, oceans, space and outerspace. As the British father of geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder wrote in his seminal 1919 book, Democratic Ideals and Reality,

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.5

For Mackinder, the Heartland integrally included Ukraine and Russia. By chopping off Ukraine from Russia in a de facto US-led coup called the Orange Revolution, Washington came a giant step nearer to a complete domination not only of Russia and the Heartland, but also of all Eurasia, including what would then become an encircled China. No wonder that the Bush-Cheney administration invested so much energy to install their man, Yushchenko, as President and de facto dictator. His task was to bring Ukraine into NATO. What he did for his countrymen was clearly of no concern to the Bush planners.

Yushchenko almost succeeded but for the ill-conceived adventure of Georgia's hand-picked Rose Revolution President, Mikhail Saakashvili in August 2008, sending troops to reclaim the seccessionist region of South Ossetia and Abkhazia for Georgia just weeks before NATO ministers would vote on Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership. The swift Russian military response in stopping the Georgian attack and routing Saakashvili's rag-tag forces also stopped dead any chance that Germany or other NATO countries would OK NATO membership, and with it the pledge to come to the defense of either Georgia or Ukraine in a war against Russia. [6]

KEY STATEMENT: Western agribusiness companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and Kraft Foods are reportedly salivating over the prospect of an end to the internal Ukrainian political stalemate in hopes of exploiting these resources. [3]

KEY STATEMENT: Western agribusiness companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and Kraft Foods are reportedly salivating over the prospect of an end to the internal Ukrainian political stalemate in hopes of exploiting these resources. [3]

Ahhh! So your big defense of Russia in this thread has merely been patriotic support for American companies who will get better bargains if they deal with Russia than if they deal with Ukraine.

Ahhh! So your big defense of Russia in this thread has merely been patriotic support for American companies who will get better bargains if they deal with Russia than if they deal with Ukraine.

No. Not at all. You have jumped to a mysterious conclusion to ask me that. My argument has been as you can read it, that Lavrov has a legitimate position on the first event in Kiev that led to the second event involving the separation of Crimea:

Here is that argument:

Quote:

In the interview with Russian television, Lavrov called the sanctions a "dead-end" strategy that would not achieve results and accused the west of hypocrisy. He said it was inconsistent for the west to refuse to recognize Crimea's annexation, which followed a referendum on joining Russia that was overwhelmingly approved, while at the same time accepting the new government in Kyiv, which was formed after the pro-Moscow president fled the country.

"If they are willing to accept the first event as legitimate, then surely they are obliged to acknowledge the second," Lavrov told Russia's Channel One television.

My response to you is about the one-sided bias presented when postiing reports that purport to show only Russian self-interest in having or aquiring access to Ukraine's fertile farmland as if the West and Western big agribusinesses have not self interests in establishing a profitable foothold there. Just pointing out bias.

I find it depressing that the Ukrainian people won't defend their homeland with their lives as well as with their words.

You do not successfully fight a war by dying. You successfully fight a war by making your enemies die.

If Ukraine were to put up a fight, the only thing that would change is that Ukrainians would die in droves and they'd lose more than they already have. What you are suggesting isn't self-defense, it's suicide. There is no honor in suicide.

You do not successfully fight a war by dying. You successfully fight a war by making your enemies die.

If Ukraine were to put up a fight, the only thing that would change is that Ukrainians would die in droves and they'd lose more than they already have. What you are suggesting isn't self-defense, it's suicide. There is no honor in suicide.

Wouldn't that be "Gandhi?" - Pretty sure that the "H" was further along in his name.Also, you should probably read a history book or two as India's independence came because the UK was unable to afford its empire, not due to any non-violent protesting. The British could have locked up Gandhi and kept on going into the 50's or 60's if they could have afforded to do so.

I have no clue that there won't be a shooting war in the Ukraine - I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you. If you do, then you should have probably spotted the Russian invasion of Crimea and called a few weeks sooner.

Please feel free to demonstrate a major international issue that has been resolved peacefully in the last 150 years on the scale of the current imbroglio between Russia and Ukraine. Please also demonstrate a military invasion which has be peacefully turned back during that same time period.

Anyway, you gave your opinion of the situation and I don't see any merit in it. Again, if Ukraine wants Western assistance then they should demonstrate why that assistance won't simply be flushed down the drain. If not, then I wish them good luck in rejoining the failing Russian empire.

As you say we have both made our case and I see no point in continuing either. However I would like to pick up your first, bold, point about my misspelling. I am Dyslexic, I reread my posts multiple times before submitting them as well as check for any errors with the spell checker. Unfortunately some things do slip through, mainly stuff that the spell checker cannot spot, like names or correctly spelt words that mean something else. Fortunately most people correctly deem that imperfect spelling is not a sign of unintelligence or a poorly thought out argument and let it slide. Others, who maybe feel they are not winning an argument, grasp at any errors and shout them out loud.

I thought I'd post this opinion piece from CNN here, since it's again another interesting (to me) view point on an aspect that has been handwaved away by both those who support Russia's viewpoint and those who just seem to want to bash Obama/US/Western Europe for the supposed tepid and silly/ridiculous sanctions:

Quote:

Starting a war to solve a domestic problem is now a Russian tradition. The first and second Chechen wars had political motives. Both were intended to distract attention from the consequences of privatization and the second brought Putin to power. The 2008 invasion of Georgia sharply increased the popularity of Dmitri Medvedev, who was filling in as president for Putin.

The earlier acts of aggression, however, did not evoke a strong international response. This time, Russia faces full scale war if it invades eastern Ukraine and, at the very least, sanctions if it does not withdraw from Crimea. It is ill equipped to handle either of these challenges.

Putin has used rhetoric reminiscent of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, insisting in his speech on March 18 that "Russia was not simply robbed, it was plundered" and denouncing "national traitors." The regime he heads, however, is tied to the West inextricably.

Quote:

Russia's wealthy, who are dependent on connections to the regime, keep their money, families and assets abroad. They avoid Russian taxes with the help of businesses registered in off-shore zones and also acquire foreign passports and buy private planes in part so that they can leave Russia quickly and discreetly if that becomes necessary. One foreign lawyer in Moscow with experience of the elite told me: "Their lack of patriotism is astounding."

Russia's businessmen depend on the West because the lawlessness inside Russia allows for assets to be seized by anyone who has political power. Large companies can be seized by state enterprises and small and medium-sized companies by persons connected to the security services.

Businessmen make far more money than they could in a comparable situation in the West because most significant Russian businesses are protected monopolies. The ability to dispense with competition, however, is the result of political patronage that can be affected by the slightest change in the balance of power.

Under these circumstances, Russia's businessmen do not keep capital in Russia and panic at the slightest threat. Western sanctions against Russian were relatively tepid but, for the Russian elite, the precedent was unnerving. Capital flight, which had been running at about $8 billion a month is now expected to amount to $70 billion for the first quarter.

Quote:

So far, Russians have not paid a price for their government's acts of aggression. The fall in the value of the ruble and the reduction in the real income of the population began this year independent of the events in Crimea. But these tendencies are now set to continue and accelerate. This is a potential threat to Putin's political base. Since the beginning of the year, the cost of food products in Russia has risen by 25%.

The impending economic crisis will be explained to the Russian population as the result of foreign sabotage. The propaganda in the official press which equates the Ukrainians with Nazis and treats the West as aggressors has been accompanied by the blocking of the critical websites, grani,ru., yezhednevny zhurnal.ru and kasparov.ru and actions against the radio station, Ekho Moskvy and the internet television station, TV Rain

I thought I'd post this opinion piece from CNN here, since it's again another interesting (to me) view point on an aspect that has been handwaved away by both those who support Russia's viewpoint and those who just seem to want to bash Obama/US/Western Europe for the supposed tepid and silly/ridiculous sanctions:

That is a pathetic misguided opinion just because of this statement:

>"The 2008 invasion of Georgia sharply increased the popularity of Dmitri Medvedev, who was filling in as president for Putin."<

It was a defensive and retaliatory strike to stop ethnic Russians from being slaughtered under Georgia heavy artillary assault. The EU Commisdion determined Russia was justified to respond but went too far. Calling it an invasion leaves out the 'justified' part.

For god's sake, Russian peacekeepers (Russian Troops) were being killed and wounded under military assault by Georgian forces. Every leader of any nation having capabilty to retaliate against Georgia's criminal murderous action would have done what Medvedev did.

NO. Not at all. Never. I was never in favor of kicking UN Inspectors out of Iraq and invading. I Marched in Protest in DC against ending inspections in order to invade. And for that I and fellow marchers were called such things as "Saddam Lovers" by 'young beer drinking republicans' standing on a balcony above the street we marched on and under their 'Young Republicans' banner... all proud to be supporting the idea for war.

So the truth is, I agreed with Putin's opposition to the invasion of Iraq and I agreed wholly in 2003 with Dominique de Villepin who was France's Foreign Minister who was vehemently opposed to the proposed US and UK idea of invading Iraq to disarm it of WMD.

Speech by M. Dominique de Villepin, Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the United Nations Security Council, New York 14.02.2003.

The latter part of the speech:

Quote:

So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for her part, proposes another meeting on 14 March at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.

5. Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq through inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:

The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would jeopardize this unity, which would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.

Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.

We all share the same priority – that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of 11 September this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, who has been struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the purpose of the Security Council meeting held on 20 January, at France’s initiative.

Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaida and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that currently disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention today be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?

France has said all along: we do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to face up to all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on 4 February which we must answer:

- To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?

- How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?

In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the centre of the peace to be built whatever happens.

To those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to succumb to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.

In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honour we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.

This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything she owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. She wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. Faithful to her values, she believes in our ability to build together a better world./.

You do not successfully fight a war by dying. You successfully fight a war by making your enemies die.

If Ukraine were to put up a fight, the only thing that would change is that Ukrainians would die in droves and they'd lose more than they already have. What you are suggesting isn't self-defense, it's suicide. There is no honor in suicide.

Agreed, you might as well attack the Danes for surrendering to Hitler.

>"The 2008 invasion of Georgia sharply increased the popularity of Dmitri Medvedev, who was filling in as president for Putin."<

It was a defensive and retaliatory strike to stop ethnic Russians from being slaughtered under Georgia heavy artillary assault. The EU Commisdion determined Russia was justified to respond but went too far. Calling it an invasion leaves out the 'justified' part.

For god's sake, Russian peacekeepers (Russian Troops) were being killed and wounded under military assault by Georgian forces. Every leader of any nation having capabilty to retaliate against Georgia's criminal murderous action would have done what Medvedev did.

The name/slogan of it in the title of youtube video is "Fascism will not pass". What "fascism" - who knows. This is Odessa - they are famous practical jokers. Maybe it's a joke.

Wonder what excuse NFBW will find for Russia grasping for Odessa. After all Odessa has been Ukrainian since at least 1920 and 62% of the population of it is Ukrainian.

Probably its not. A small number of Ukrainian right wing nationalists in Kiev got their way through protest and violence in February. So why not a small number of Russians just protesting. Should the new un-elected givernment gun peaceful protesters down for demanding closer ties to Russia?

NO. Not at all. Never. I was never in favor of kicking UN Inspectors out of Iraq and invading. ?

Well I'm a little confused. You said it was hypocrisy for the U.S. to oppose the Crimea annexation after they invaded Iraq and bombed Kosovo. That indicates an equivalency. Since you support the Crimea annexation it follows that you support those other actions.

Well I'm a little confused. You said it was hypocrisy for the U.S. to oppose the Crimea annexation after they invaded Iraq and bombed Kosovo. That indicates an equivalency. Since you support the Crimea annexation it follows that you support those other actions.

Don't be confused:

At 03-01-2014 on 08:22 AM NotfooledbyW wrote:

Quote:

I find it interesting that the mention of offensive military aggression and non-diplomatic provocation from one nation against another does not include what happened in March of 2003 where a sovereign nation was no threat to world peace and no genocide was in progress because that invaded nation allowed the UNSC in to its hearts content to verify whether or not WMD were present.

The US UK invasion of Iraq hat ended diplomacy that was working at the time is the primary example offensive military unnecessary aggression across territorial established borders since WWIi.

And this is about what is perceived as provocation and invasion and military aggression by Putin against the bloc of nations that kicked the UN out of Iraq then bombed and invaded with ground troops and occupied the country for a decade. Putin advised the idiot Iraq invaders at the time it was wrong.

Putin's current 'provocation' into Ukraine in perspective is a reaction to the violent change in government there. What Putin is doing is reacting to what could become a dangerous and deadly situation for Russian speaking Ukrainians if things deteriorate.
A show of force may not be a bad thing oversll until the UNSC gets in contact with the new government.

But the same nations that killed diplomacy to kill people in Iraq when no danger or threat was present need to look at the logs in their eyes when pointing to the speck in Putin's eye right now.

Address by President of the Russian Federation March 18, 2014, 15:50 The Kremlin, Moscow

Quote:

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.

Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Putin's speeches are so easy to pick apart, it's a shame that there are so many people - in Russia and abroad - willing to stand by his every word. I'll be genuinely worried if Putin, much like Castro or Chavez before him, becomes popular among left-wingers in the West.

I have your ridiculous fact- and consistency-free postings. My point, delivered with no small amount of sarcasm to which you seem oblivious, is that what you blithely condemn in the US's actions in Iraq you blithely condone in Russia's action in Crimea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batistuta

Putin's speeches are so easy to pick apart, it's a shame that there are so many people - in Russia and abroad - willing to stand by his every word. I'll be genuinely worried if Putin, much like Castro or Chavez before him, becomes popular among left-wingers in the West.

He seems to be gaining popularity among the flakier right-wingers, actually; Steven Seagal has recently been talking about what good friends he and Putin are. And that's not counting the fundamentalist types who talk about how "moral" Putin is for Russia's persecution of homosexuals.

He seems to be gaining popularity among the flakier right-wingers, actually; Steven Seagal has recently been talking about what good friends he and Putin are. And that's not counting the fundamentalist types who talk about how "moral" Putin is for Russia's persecution of homosexuals.

Aye, and the same is happening in the UK (Nigel Farage seems to be secretly in love with Putin). But here in continental Europe, I've heard many left-wingers support Putin because he is "standing up to the West" and all that.

And your own cites and language that constantly refers to thugs and fascists with fascist imagery is completely objective, right?

Some measure of fascist thugs participated crashing through police barricades to get ont the equivalent of the White House lawn near Kyev to threaten the prsudent's life. These were fascists in the lead promoting violent attacks on government property and apparently you are defending them by pretending they don't exist.